Judgment Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J. 1. Petitioner was an employee of the State Bank of India. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him. Memo of charge dated 11.10.2001 (Annexure-6) was served upon him, which contained the following five charges. (i) That on 30.12.1994 when you were officiating as Assistant Manager at Masaurhi Branch, you got opened a fictitious Savings Bank A/C No. 16309 in the name of Shri Amrendra Kumar Singh by verifying the signature of the depositor. (ii) That you authenticated the initial deposit of Rs. 250/- which too was fictitious (in the S.B. A/C No. 16309). (iii) That you deliberately did not obtain photographs of the depositor while opening the said fictitious account No. 16309. (iv) That you deliberately violated the Banks rules and exceeded your powers by opening the said account without the permission of the competent authority. (v) That on 11.1.1995, you passed a fictitious payment of Rs. 5,000/- in the said account by cheque no. 744542. 2. The enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of charge nos. 1, 2 and 5. The disciplinary authority made available to the petitioner the enquiry report and asked the petitioner to submit his show cause. Petitioner submitted his show cause and the disciplinary authority by order dated 7.6.2000 (Annexure-5) imposed the punishment of removal from Banks service with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner preferred appeal and the appellate authority by order dated 11th of October, 2001 (Annexure-6) dismissed the appeal. 3. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has preferred this application and prays for quashing of the order dated 7th of June, 2000 (Annexure-5) passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 11th October, 2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the appellate authority. 4. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding that established charges proved the petitioners integrity to be doubtful but in fact no such charge was levelled. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents however submits that the charge of fictitious payment itself is the charge of doubtful integrity and in that view of the matter the appellate authority did not err in holding that the established charges proved the petitioners integrity to be doubtful. 5. Having appreciated the rival submission I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Mahto. 5. Having appreciated the rival submission I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Mahto. Charge levelled against the petitioner is that while he was officiating as Assistant Manager he got opened a fictitious savings account and authenticated the initial deposit of Rs. 250/-which was fictitious and passed fictitious payment of Rs. 5,000/- from the said account and ultimately from the said account a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- has been siphoned. These charges have been proved against him which clearly show that the integrity of the petitioner is doubtful. 6. Mr. Mahto then submits that the penalty of removal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of allegation. Mr. Sinha however submits that seeing the gravity of the allegation the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of removal from service which shall not disentitle him the benefit of past service and in that view of the matter the punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of allegation. 7. It is well settled that what punishment a particular misconduct should entail is primarily the function of the employer and this Court interferes with the same only when it is shown that the punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of allegation or to put it differently shocking to the conscience of the Court. Here in the present case allegation against the petitioner is of opening of a fictitious account and making payment from such account. Petitioner has been visited with the penalty of removal from service which shall not disentitle him the benefit of the past service and in that view of the matter I am of the opinion that the punishment is not shocking to the conscience of the Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 8. I do not find any merit in the writ application and it is dismissed accordingly.